Saturday, February 11, 2017

Now, I love and respect John Wright for many reasons. He is, among other things, a science fiction and fantasy grandmaster, and one of the three best writers of his generation. But I am in complete intellectual harmony with no man, and his civic nationalism - which I will note that other men I respect such as Mike Cernovich and Donald Trump share - is one of them. The problem is that their civic nationalism is almost entirely based on myths and falsehoods, as anyone who has done the necessary historical research already knows.

America has a dogma. America is based on the proposition that all men are created equal. Anyone learning and loving that dogma, who comes here, is a candidate for becoming an American, and, upon legal naturalization, will be as much an American as the man whose ancestors arrived on the Mayflower.

America does have a dogma. It is, like many national founding myths, a false dogma. There is no more truth to the idea that America is based on the proposition that all men are created equal than there is to the idea that Rome was founded by Aeneas and the Trojan refugees. John clearly has not read Cuckservative, or some of the relevant writings of various Founding Fathers.

Why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our settlements, and by herding together establish their languages and manners to the exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our language or customs, any more than they can acquire our complexion?
—Ben Franklin, Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, 1751

Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson happen to disprove the romantic notion of the civic nationalists as well. They believed foreigners could assimilate, so long as there were sufficiently small numbers of them, and their blood literally intermingled with the English blood of the actual Americans in time.

The policy or advantage of [immigration] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, and laws: in a word, soon become one people.
—George Washington, letter to John Adams, November 15, 1794

Although as to other foreigners it is thought better to discourage their settling together in large masses, wherein, as in our German settlements, they preserve for a long time their own languages, habits, and principles of government, and that they should distribute themselves sparsely among the natives for quicker amalgamation, yet English emigrants are without this inconvenience.
—Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Flower, 1817

The Left, in order to destroy this concept, wrote immigration laws and misinterpreted constitutional principles, to make it so that anyone with an anchor baby, or any relative, living here, could be welcomed here. This was done by enemies of American and is alien to our entire way of life.

Now, this part is correct. But recall that the Left achieved its goals by appealing to the very founding myths to which the civic nationalists subscribe.

America is not a nation in the sense that nations in the Old World are. We are exceptional. We are a new concept.

If America is not a nation in the sense that nations in the Old World are, then it is not a nation at all. There is absolutely nothing new about the idea of giving citizenship to small numbers of foreigners or permitting entry to immigrants in the futile hope that they will strengthen the nation without transforming it into something that it is not. And the Swiss confederation preceded the American by more than 500 years.

Why do I need to be explaining to you something we have both known since childhood? How can anyone American or not, who is aware of America, be unaware of how America works or what is the secret of our unparalleled success?

The difference is that I understand that the national founding myth is a myth, of no more truth than George Washington's famous cherry tree. If America's civic nationalists were Romans, they would insist that the secret to Rome's strength was that the blood of Trojans flowed in their veins. Immigration and equality have very little, if anything, to do with America's success, as the previous success of the British empire should suffice to show. America was successful because it was founded by one of the most successful peoples in the history of Man, and founded on a vast and wealthy continent protected from the powers of the Old World by an ocean. Moreover, Australia has hardly been a failure; its success can certainly be described as being reasonably comparable to the USA's, especially given its relative geographic disadvantages.

This reminds me of the very popular view among economists that the secret to the USA's post-WWII economic growth was the massive amount of government spending during the war, forgetting the considerably more important fact that the USA was the only industrialized country whose population and infrastructure was not devastated by the war.

Now, certain loudmouths on the Alt-Right heaps contempt on all these ideas, but never says anything that actually addresses or casts honest doubt on them. Aside from the emotion of scorn, there is no argument there. It is shouting, but no words underneath the noise.

I leave it to the reader to determine the veracity of those words. What aspect of John's argument for civic nationalism have I failed to address? Point it out, by all means, if you can, and I shall do my humble best to amend any failures in that regard. One reason the Alt-Right's rise is inevitable is our intellectual ruthlessness and our determination to accept even those truths that are most painful to us. We are not at war with the civic nationalists; they are not the enemies of the West. But if we are to see the situation as clearly as possible and understand the current challenges as deeply as we can, we cannot permit ourselves to be hampered by their conceptual baggage.

If you want to get up to speed on this subject, I strongly suggest you read Cuckservative, by John Red Eagle and me. We learned a lot in the writing of the book, so it is safe to assume you'll learn something by reading it.

John C. Wright quoted by VDNow, certain loudmouths on the Alt-Right heaps contempt on all these ideas, but never says anything that actually addresses or casts honest doubt on them. Aside from the emotion of scorn, there is no argument there.

Someone point me to John C. Wright's discussion of the 16 points, please. Far as I can tell he's never bothered to even read them. Anyone who claims to be a thinker about the alt RIght, but who can't be bothered to read and debate the 16 points is not arguing in good faith.

Well, it didn't hurt that we did things like stealing the best and brightest from Germany after World War 2. But the secret to our success is far more abhorrent to the left than simple genetics: it is built on a society of responsible, industrious, innovative freemen operating within the confines of Christian morality.

Given the example of South Korea, I posit that this structure can be extended to at least some other portions of the world with similar results, British heritage notwithstanding.

First, we have to recognize that Jefferson did not believe in equality. The point of his Declaration states is that all peoples have the right to self-determination. Contra Lincoln and every op-ed editor in the US, the Declaration is NOT an assertion of equality.

Not only does Jefferson assert his belief in human inequality in Notes of the State of Virginia and other works, in the Declaration he makes clear that English settlers need English laws, and that the Indians of North America are "merciless savages."

I intend no disrespect to Mr. Wright. As a recovering civic nationalist, I recognize many of the same arguments. However, in the course of reading this blog (and others), the cognitive dissonance became overwhelming, and it was only when I became intellectually honest--ruthlessly, unreservedly--that the proposition nation became a steaming pile of dog crap.

Frankly I view this as a bit of cuck-panic behavior brought on by the God Emperor enforcing immigration law. Mayhap Mr Wright who would be better served ignoring the media altogether if the thought of our President fulfilling his sworn duty has him running for he safety of an idea, reality being too harsh to face. That idea being a propositional Nation where no foreigners are ever ill suited to life in the US, the proposition gets magically transmitted to immigrants even though they cant speak the language, and their children aren't taught in public schools the proposition is a lie. Its rather disheartening to see people squirming three weeks in to what is a going to be a long project (MAGA). Put on your big boy pants Mr Wright, life isn't a fantasy.

"We have observed that civilizations tend to fall both by their own increasing weight and by the decay of their human foundations. But we have indicated that there exists yet another destructive tendency, which may be termed "atavistic revolt." Let us see precisely what this implies."

The great irony of Franklin's concern is that he picked the one group that consistently assimilated as an example.

There is no irony there at all. Again, read Cuckservative.

You may be under the false impression that Franklin’s opinion was proven completely wrong by events. After all, his much-feared Germanization of America never happened, and Pennsylvania became a typical English-speaking American place like any other, right? In that case, you would do well to visit Lancaster County and consider the fact that there are now 270,000 Amish living in the United States, more than four times as many as the 60,000 Germans who lived in Pennsylvania at the time Franklin was writing his essay. In 1750, Germans made up about half the total population of the colony, and percentages that large have always had negative consequences for assimilation, even in the long term.

In practice, such numbers proved enough for the emergence of a distinct Pennsylvania Deutsch language, a blend of various regional German dialects. It survived as a primary language for the German-descended population, in preference to English, until the mid-20th century. Even today, estimates for the number of speakers range from 150,000 to 300,000.

So, it only took them 200 years to partially assimilate linguistically. That does not support the civic nationalist argument at all.

It is a mistake to attribute every disagreement to cowardice. People believe false things for plenty of reasons other than "reality being too harsh to face." I would be astonished if everything you or I believed were true.

I have my fair share of disagreements with Mr. Wright, but ascribing such motives to him is laughable. And has he actually objected to Trump's actions regarding immigration anyway? I'll admit to not having followed him very closely for some while, so it's possible I missed something, but as Vox himself pointed out, Trump, the man taking those actions, seems to be much nearer to agreement with Wright than Vox on the principles of the matter.

S1AL wrote:Given the example of South Korea, I posit that this structure can be extended to at least some other portions of the world with similar results, British heritage notwithstanding.

From the little I know about SK, it is a high IQ, low trust society with a large percentage of Christians. Our nation was originally high IQ, high trust, Christian. I'd say that SK has about two out of three of the prerequisits of success.

"So, it only took them 200 years to partially assimilate linguistically. That does not support the civic nationalist argument at all."

You're picking an isolated example from the literal millions of German immigrants. The irony is not that he was wrong, per se, but that he picked the worst possible example in the long run.

I'm also not attempting to bolster the Civic nationalist argument; my stance had consistently been that integration requires intermarriage and small enough percentages and at least 2 generations. I doubt that we disagree on that point.

I believe the torture is only to be used in a loving manner to help the confessee remember and confess his transgressions so he can repent and receive forgiveness. It's really a therapeutic tecnique like cognitive behavioral therapy. Just with more pitch, spikes and pliers. Really, it would be unethical *not* to torture those in need of it.

The flaming justice following the torture is just to help with repentence and has nothing to do with any desire to inflict pain.

Fair enough. I think we're around to different points (you that Franklin was correct, me that Germans have generally integrated far beyond any other immigrant group, and I find the juxtaposition amusing).

Regardless, I've concluded that the fundamental disagreement between you and Mr. Wright is on these points: the extent to which culture is downstream from cult, and the extent to which culture can overcome race in the creation of an ethnic group.

I'd note also that Mr. Wright has a personal stake in the question not entirely dissimilar to that of the redoubtable Hoyt, although probably of a more subliminal nature:

The passengers of the Mayflower literally remembered the 5th of November.

And I literally remember when the greatest topic of debate in the nation was whether someone of that persuasion should be allowed to be President. Which was just a handful of years before the Immigration Act.

So, it only took them 200 years to partially assimilate linguistically. That does not support the civic nationalist argument at all.

And this from a culture/ethnicity far closer to the original founders than any of the immigrants the Propositioneers want to assimilate today. The Germans eventually mostly assimilated. The Irish, Italians and Polish partially assimilated. La Raza Comica (perhaps I forgot a letter) hasn't and won't. The Dindus continually attempt to assimilate their Talented 10th, only to find the children falling back into those old African Rhythms.

Proposition. It's the right word - people making a whore out of America.

S1AL wrote:You're picking an isolated example from the literal millions of German immigrants.

Ok, I have a more up-to-date example (from direct observation): Portuguese immigrants fall into two groups, roughly:

(a) highly educated, highly paid professionals, who typically build a life identical to their colleagues, and raise their families like americans, including rooting for the FIVE TIMES SUPER BOWL CHAMPIONS New England Patriots; and

(b) people who have lived in the US for over a decade and speak no English and haven't integrated in any way. When I say "no English at all," I don't mean they had awkward grammar and limited vocabulary; I mean they couldn't tell airline personnel that their connecting flight was grounded and they needed hotel & taxi vouchers.

This (b) group is much larger than (a). I assume that's common across other ethnic groups, possibly with the exception of the ones in Europe north of the 45-degree North latitude.

John, you are missing a very key point. We are alt-Right... not alt-white. Most of us hate Spencer and the Daily Stormer. We would punch out these Nazis! We love Judeo-Christ, we worship Jews and Israel, and we too are ashamed of our white skin. We would NEVER support white homelands because that is Nazi swastika panties. (Remember, Vox isn't white either, we love browns! And gays like Milo!)... come join the Alt-Right, Mr. Wright... join now and you get free dick pills from Cernovich.

This reminds me of the very popular view among economists that the secret to the USA's post-WWII economic growth was the massive amount of government spending during the war, forgetting the considerably more important fact that the USA was the only industrialized country whose population and infrastructure was not devastated by the war.

This is ignoring a rather important fact, which is that America started with having over half of the worlds industrial might even before the war (and the spending on said war), and that at the tail end of a great depression. Where did all THAT come from?

I mean, look at the British Empire, even with the original country, England, plus places like Ireland and Scotland,, the addition of places like India with it's very large population, and fully (or mostly) English speaking countries like Australia and Canada, both of which have a large land area with rich natural resources plus no nearby enemies, similar to America, you add even all that up together and it still could not match Americas industrial might. Why not? I mean, with just Canada and Australia alone, if we are talking things such as natural resources and no nearby enemies plus English speaking people and culture, those two together should have exceeded the industrial might of America, should they not?

Was it Americas natural resources, it's great harbors, more or smarter people, what? Other countries had all those things, yet they had not become great, and other people came to America simply to look around to see what had made it great, which was exactly the word they used. The conclusion was. “America was great because America was good”.

The conclusion, something was different about the character of the American people which caused it to become great, since that was the only difference between it and those other countries, many of which had all of Americas other benefits of lands, resources, and English speaking people and culture.

Two other things should be noted, America had come through a destructive and expensive civil war only eighty years before, and America had had all that immigration from the end of that war to the beginning of WWII. If not being in wars or not having much immigration were the keys to greatness, America should not have been as great as it was.

And there is yet more to look at, there are more immigrants now than even at the height of earlier pre -WII immigration, in those older days they came wishing to become Americans whereas now they come just for the money and often do not wish to become Americans, and today we have multiculturalism and suchlike which were designed specifically to weaken our cultures ability to convert even native born children into Americans, to say nothing of foreigners. It should also be noted that many of the foreigners were brought in by our own government and leftist organizations (but I repeat myself) with the specific intention of diluting our culture, which is a new development. Our culture has been weakened to the point that it can no longer absorb the masses that it once did, yet it has had to try and absorb even greater masses, and of peoples who are much harder to absorb, if they even can be, such as Muslims, or Spanish speaking peoples who live next door and can thus return at will and thus see no need to become Americans.

Simply put, the America that is now is different than the America that was, and the immigrants now are different than the immigrants that were, and thus now cannot be compared to then. Also, America then was not like the rest of the world, the culture was different, and actually could absorb many immigrants (up to a point), and proved it by doing so yet remaining America. The America that was does not fit the history that Vox quoted, the America that is does. America really was unique and exceptional then, it only contains a fraction of that exceptionalism now (how big a fraction is debatable), and thus we need to not look to Americas past to see what our future will be, but the past of other countries. Thus, what JCW is saying is true for the past and however much of American exceptionalism remains, and what Vox says is true for the future and the part (which may now be the majority) which is no longer exceptional.

“America is great because America is good, and when America ceases to be good, it will cease to be great.”

Conclusion:Build the wall.Expel foreigners who do not wish to become us.With the time we gain from that, to make America great again, make America good again.This also includes crushing the forces that want to make America evil, those who also brought in all those foreigners.After we have done all that, only then can we think about letting in a measured amount of immigrants who actually wish to become Americans, they can take the spaces left after we have crushed the above.

Note that if we fail to make America good again, we are still going downhill, but we can hold it off for some time by expelling the foreigners and maybe make the landing softer.

@Jose - Again, my point was a specific comment, not a general observation. This is another fine example of an incorrect binary. That some specific ethnic groups can more-or-less seamlessly integrate with the right circumstances does not mean all ethnic groups or any circumstances.

@kfg - Fair enough, it's a bit sad that I forgot them, given that I have Dutch ancestry of that variety.

Wright was born in an 85% white country and will either die a despised minority, or if he dies sooner, his children instead will be the despised minority.

This discussion of theory and casting blame is wasted time. Let's address the facts: proposition nation ideology has led us to this point, helpless to defend itself against the weakest of invaders.

Natural selection. Weak societies get taken over. Muslim Brotherhood Keith Ellison is at this moment taking over the Democratic Party.

Wright's grandchildren will be mixed race, look nothing like him, and will rightly spit on his grave for his weakness.

I won't mourn the loss, just as I don't the losses of Native Americans to my ancestors. In fact, I'd rather see Mexicans take over California than the current degenerate child abusers who run it now take possession.

"Anyone learning and loving that dogma, who comes here, is a candidate for becoming an American, and, upon legal naturalization, will be as much an American as the man whose ancestors arrived on the Mayflower."

John does more harm to his cause with this statement than anything else he writes. Nothing is more offensive than to say that some fresh off the boat immigrant is just as much an American than someone whose ancestors have created and maintained the nation. It is spitting in the face of Americans and saying that they are nothing but a superficial ideal that anyone can hold. The reduction of our culture, heritage, and history to a slogan anyone can ascribe to and claim to own just as much as we if ridiculous. No people would stand for such an affront to their nation, and it is little wonder that Americans won't either.

"The conclusion, something was different about the character of the American people which caused it to become great, since that was the only difference between it and those other countries, many of which had all of Americas other benefits of lands, resources, and English speaking people and culture."

It's pretty simple: natural resources and more white people than any other country.

This is ignoring a rather important fact, which is that America started with having over half of the worlds industrial might even before the war (and the spending on said war), and that at the tail end of a great depression. Where did all THAT come from?

You're forgetting WWI. I also question your claim that the USA was responsible for half of the world's industry prior to 1940 and will look it up to verify it. I know that Britain certainly had a much larger navy and France had a much larger army.

Vox, would it be fair to summarize your views wrt to who is an American as:Americans 1.0: The only true Americans, descendants of the original English Americans, the Mayflower Americans.Americans 2.0: Admixture of original Americans + later English immigrants + European immigrants (+ Jewish immigrants?). Not real Americans, and responsible for many of the negative changes to America, but due to similarities and commonalities, they are passably acceptable as Americans. Also the mixing is so deep that it would be impossible to realistically discuss removing them.Americans 3.0: Third world immigrants, mostly post 1965. Not Americans at all. Not compatible. Allowed in overwhelming numbers which prevented assimilation. Many incompatibilities are genetic and cannot be assimilated out anyway. Easily identifiable for removal.

Did they? The Washington Naval Treaty put the US and the UK equally at 10 ships (the quota makers) to the other countries.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Washington_Naval_Treaty

After the treaty took effect, the US laid more keels than the British in battleships and carriers as shown there. I don't see the numbers for smaller ships, but I wouldn't be surprised if the US was ahead there too.

Napoleon 12pdr wrote:A man starts to truly becomes American when he realizes there is no other nation on Earth that will accept him as their own.

Which America do you mean? Do you mean the white minority country by 2050, or some smaller country post-breakup?

In white minority America, you will not be accepted even there, but rather oppressed (evil colonizer, racist!). Jury is out on broken up America; you'll have to fight and maybe die to be accepted there.

An educated white American will be more accepted in communist China than BLM America. Whites about to be homeless or soldiers under martial law.

Thanks to the media and the sorry education system, almost everyone conflates equality under the law with equality into everything else. I certainly had that view many years ago until I stared doing more reading on politics and history. The founders were certainly concerned with what kind of immigration the US would have to be viable.

Vox, would it be fair to summarize your views wrt to who is an American as:

Close but not quite. Thinking through it, I'd put it like this:

Americans 1.0: The only true Americans, descendants of the original English Americans, the Mayflower Americans.

Americans 2.0: Admixture of original Americans + later English immigrants + second-wave European immigrants. Not real Americans, mostly Northern European, mostly Protestant, and responsible for some of the negative changes to America, but due to similarities and commonalities, they are passably acceptable as Americans. Also the mixing is so deep that it would be impossible to realistically discuss removing them.

Americans 3.0: Third-wave European immigrants. Not real Americans, mostly Southern European, mostly Catholic, and responsible for most of the negative changes to America. They tend to be hyphenated Americans and they are not fully compatible nor are they fully assimilated as they remain attached to their native cultures and traditions. Identifiable for removal with some degree of difficulty.

Americans 4.0: Third world immigrants, mostly post-1965. Not Americans at all. Not compatible. Allowed in overwhelming numbers which prevented assimilation. Many incompatibilities are genetic and cannot be assimilated out anyway. Easily identifiable for removal.

"America is not a nation in the sense that nations in the Old World are. We are exceptional. We are a new concept."

Among other things, I'm struck by how un-conservative this concept is. After thousands of years of human history, someone came up with a new kind of nation which is so qualitatively different from all others that it is not subject to the same limits?

I have already alluded to the fact that the Mayflower settlers were not the first Americans. Nor were they the last.

The story of the Pilgrim Fathers is itself a 19th century creation myth, promulgated by the first government schools, which were in . . . Massachusetts. It was part of the culture war between the northern Puritan descended and the Cavalier descended of Virginia.

With a side order of some people wanting to infuse the founding of America with religious purpose, and the Jamestown Colony was too blatantly mercantile.

And it ignores the Dutch (1624, Hudson Valley to Connecticut Valley) who fought the French and Indian Wars as British citizens and the Revolution as Americans.

As a side note, the Dutch invented the modern limited liability company to fund their explorations and colonies. They were a nation of petit merchants and didn't have great houses with great treasure stores to back them. Incorporating an expedition allowed every Klaus, Frederick and Harry to put up his 20 guilders without risking everything he had in a partnership. It enlisted the wealth of all the citizenry to get a piece of the action.

And allowed them, for a time, to take the stage as one of the great powers in the first world war.

This article is great. One more way to sever "Constitutional conservatives" from the Founders, which they think they follow. I made this a couple of days ago to mess with some of those guys, and this article should stoke them, too.

This is ignoring a rather important fact, which is that America started with having over half of the worlds industrial might even before the war (and the spending on said war), and that at the tail end of a great depression. Where did all THAT come from?

As I suspected, this is incorrect by every measure. The USA had about 31 percent of the industrial capacity of the seven major powers prior to WWII. This is primarily reflective of its larger population, as it had 132 million people, compared to 48.4 million in the UK, 40.7 million in France, and 79.4 million in Germany.

kfg wrote:I take your point, but note that being treated with a minimum amount of courtesy so long as you are useful and behave yourself is not the same thing as being accepted.

The Han do not care about being called racist. They are ancestor worshipers. The Han care about the Han.

That's Vox's point in this whole fucking dialog, no? 'America' as a nation doesn't exist anymore.

Here you are spouting about feeling like an American. It's incoherent, because America as a nation died before I was born. Han care about only Han, and so their nation exists today.

Could give a shit about the difference between being treated with courtesy and acceptance. More concerned with, will I be violently oppressed/attacked? The fact is, I will only ever be 'accepted' by a nation of people who share my background, values, etc. If that's off the table, then you have do get what you can get.

As far as this word 'racist?' It's meaningless babble, intended only to silence weak men. I don't know why you bring it up. You do seem overly concerned with other people's opinion of yourself. Like a cuck.

@39Two other things should be noted, America had come through a destructive and expensive civil war only eighty years before, and America had had all that immigration from the end of that war to the beginning of WWII.

@19 At least the PA Dutch didn't try to impose religion by force on the rest. Certain cultures can coexist in Federalism.

But even American 1.0 broke apart - with the Union imposing and refusing to coexist with the south.

(For those who would say "but slavery", I'd counter with the far greater evil, part of post 1965, of Abortion - we've become the Aztecs, worse because it is a soft black genocide).

But there are those stubborn facts.

Post 1965, not only have immigrants failed to assimilate (cite if you disagree), but worse, Americans themselves have dis-assimilated. Look at almost any College campus. Look at Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, or Ferguson (on both sides).

Or California. Amputation (secession) is easier than trying to save the gangrenous limb.

The other thing is that I find it ... somewhere between disingenuous and stupid that for 30 years the "proposition" has not been insisted upon so we have tens of thousands of people that hate the "proposition nation" and would rather have some south of the border nation if not Sharia. WHERE WERE YOU?

The Alt-Right manages to get Trump in to stop the hemorrhaging and they are arguing because the doctor which has cauterized the wound is white when the multicultural doctors let the bleeding continue and worsen for three decades.

You wish "the proposition"? Move to the middle of LA, Baltimore, or Ferguson and preach and see if you can covert. Or to Chicago gangland territory (see "bulletproof monk" - such exist). Put your family at risk, i.e. your money where your mouth is.

It is an "inconvenient truth" that most who assent to the "proposition" are white, and those who seek its destruction aren't. (I think women are also against the proposition). But that is the hand that was dealt.

I keep pointing out to libertarian "Austrians" that Mises pointed out you need to deal with the humans you have, not homo economicus, models, or some idealized society.

I'm fine with either Vox's idea of purging the enemy, and would be fine with Wright's implicit thought police purge, but there is where the break is. What will he do with the 60-80 million lefties that want him dead? Deport? Execute? How to sort? Oaths? Police?

I remember the Missionaries v.s. Cannibals puzzle. If the cannibals outnumber the missionaries, they will eat them. There is the complex subtle solution, and there's "shoot the cannibals".

Wright doesn't deny there are those who wish to kill him among the propositional citizens, but gives no practical solution (and post-Berkeley, having the police maybe or not arrest or not the person who bashed your skull in isn't going to work).

@vox: my maternal grandmother's family were puritans who came over in 1631. They later moved south and intermarried with some of those Germans whom Franklin referred to (settled in PA circa 1690) and (further south) the Scots-Irish. Yet, my oldest aunt remembers her aunts chattering amongst themselves in German, but refusing to teach the next generation due to two recent world wars against the Germans. That 250 years of noot assimilating despite religious and cultural mingling and much intermarriage. Post 1965 immigrants might reach the same point in 750 years since they have even less in common with Americans and less impulse to assimilate. Might. Personally, I expect the true answer is never since they are here to conquer, not join the current people or proposition. Therefore, the only valid answer is: they have to go back.

It may be helpful to read John Locke to understand Thomas Jefferson's DoI.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

All men are created equal in that they are endowed by their creator with...? Self explanatory. Don't try to read into, what is not there.

When I hear "American nation," I think of the rural Midwest area where I grew up, where school kids said the Pledge and everyone saluted the flag when it went by at the head of the parade at the town festival. Everyone shared pretty much the same beliefs about everything from patriotism to zoning. Not Mayberry, but not that unlike it.

Thing is, the population was also 99% white, primarily English and German with some Irish, and all Christian. So if it seemed like we were part of a nation, that's because we largely were. But people of different nationalities in other parts of America didn't share our version represented America, so we weren't really part of one big nation after all.

If you brought a bunch of Mexicans into that rural area, they wouldn't become part of that "nation." For starters, they'd fly the Mexican flag, not the American one -- not because Leftism, but because they'd be Mexicans.

So what we thought was the "American nation" was actually several different nationalities, who managed to coexist inside the same country for a century without too much conflict because we mostly avoided each other.

John clearly has not read Cuckservative, or some of the relevant writings of various Founding Fathers.

The odds that Mr. Wright has read fewer founding documents in the original than Vox Day are slim. Nonetheless, taking only the quotes at hand, I'd bet Mr. Wright came to a different conclusion because he & Vox Day share some - but not all - assumptions about human nature.

I can't speak for Mr. Wright in this regard, but for my own part, Vox Day & I appear to differ on these points.

1. Intelligence is more important than either experience, wisdom or virtue. For my part, intelligence is a happy biological starting point, like a healthy constitution, strength, beauty, good eyesight, etc. A society can thrive having only a handful of intelligent people, but a majority of Christians of good sense. The latter is not true.

2. Racial characteristics are sharply defined (rather than a continuum of genetic expression) and more important than cultural capital. Since Vox's Vibrants and Dalrymple's chavs - one black, one white - share the exact same failures - this is clearly not the case. The only factor found in common with success is Christianity (called by some "Western Civilization" since the obliteration of Christian Asia Minor by the Paynim). The only common failure: Marxist atheism or paganism. Q.E.D.

Different starting assumptions = different results, even if you've both read the same documents.

By the way, the clearest evidence that I am correct in #1, is that Mr. Wright is probably smarter and better educated/better read than most people. Including, possibly Vox Day. Nonetheless, for most of his life, he was wrong, fatally wrong about the most important question in existence, while the stupidest cracker bending the knee to Christ Jesus in Suckville, West Virginia was right.

I was talking to a group of older Christians last night and realized that they are one real life altercation away from being alt-right instead of civic-right because their ideological castles in the air haven't been real world tested. Current American Christians are just as much a product of their culture as old testament Israelites were a product of theirs.

It seems helpful to think of human community (generally) as a spectrum with historically your family being closest both geographically and genetically and spreading out from there. Where you put the "this is a functional nation" mark varies case to case and era to era, but doesn't really move much on the big spectrum.

If you brought a bunch of Mexicans into that rural area, they wouldn't become part of that "nation." For starters, they'd fly the Mexican flag, not the American one -- not because Leftism, but because they'd be Mexicans.

Mr. Corishev, if you'd just added "brought a bunch in now" we'd be in complete agreement.

But the reality is that 100 years ago they'd probably be flying the American flag, too. There are two reasons why: One, out of love and gratitude (I know some people like this) the other is fear: "If I don't conform, it's gonna hurt me!" (I know LOTS of people like this).

Here in the Pacific NW, lovely "pure white" types, 100 years ago were also known as "stupid Swedes" and "dirty Swedes" because they were well, impoverished Swedish farmers who came for the lure of land, and later gold. I'll be maybe one in one hundred learned English and made becoming "more American than thou" a priority because they loved the "proposition." (For those that did, if I'm talking about your grandparents & great-grandparents: God bless you! I'm glad you came. We're fighting the same fight.) IIRC (and I'd have to look up the numbers) it was far more than 5% of the population.

No. It was fear and ambition butting up against a confident American culture - against American nationalism. So thanks to SJWs the Alt-White currently serves a purpose, rather in the same way intestinal parasites do growing kid's immune system.

So where do blacks belong in the above 4 stages of immigration/Americans? And what should be done about them, ideally speaking?

Allotting territory in America to form a separate nation-state seems unwise as it would most likely produce another 3rd world neighbor. Sending them back to Africa seems unfair since part of their ancestors (which they substituted for ALL of their ancestors) came here by force.

"I have already alluded to the fact that the Mayflower settlers were not the first Americans. Nor were they the last.

The story of the Pilgrim Fathers is itself a 19th century creation myth...."

Not that I'm trying to follow kfg around the internet explaining his stuff, but....

Vox, I think you're trying to generalize a specific strain of American nation to the entire federation. America was never really controlled by the people you identify as 'real' Americans or 'Americans 1.0.' They were an expanding cultural power on the continent, and ended up having an outsized impact on its development, but nothing more.

The culture you identify as 'American' was in fact an uneasy alliance between several different distinct cultures, who each had different ideas about how society should be structured and run, and had a different set of identities. The Puritans had a very different societal and cultural model than the Quakers (who, incidentally, pioneered tolerance and thereby let in the first major waves of culturally different immigrants - in the form of German farmers, and, later, Irish and Scottish reavers). These two powers were much more similar to each other than the other powers they had to collude with to form the original confederation necessary to achieve independence from Britain - the Cavaliers, the slavers from Barbados of the deep south, and the Appalachian culture that developed as a result of the influx of the border-reavers into the region. All of these cultures had their origin in Great Britain; this isn't even beginning to consider the cultures (such as that of parts of Texas and New Mexico) that had their origin elsewhere.

Even now, the American midwest bears far more similarity culturally to southern Canada than it does to the American south.

If we're to properly understand the nationalistic identities that exist within North America, it does not really pay to understand there being an original 'American' nation at all. There were several. They learned to play nice with each other, which is great, but they don't intermingle well. And if you want to promote Yankee culture above and in opposition to the other originating cultures of the confederation, all well and good; I agree with the sentiment. But that's what you're doing, not getting back to the 'original' American culture.

That's not to say several of these peoples (if similar enough in interests or values) cannot coexist under a unified governmental banner, but one must be frank that that is what is happening.

This all seems like an incredibly stupid argument. I look at the debate between civic nationalists vs. white nationalists vs. various strains of the alt right, alt-west and other versions of American nationalism as like men on the Titanic debating about what color the staterooms ought to be painted or if that nights dinner had been properly cooked. All when the freaking ship is sinking!Its like someone living in Minnesota in mid winter debating about the proper level of R values for wall insulation when the doors and windows are all wide open and its minus 15 outside. Stop focusing on minutia and other related issues when we cant stop the primary problem to begin with. We've got more than a million folks coming into the US annually that are legal. A huge percentage of these are third worlders that have limited abilities or job skills, and little or no desire to integrate and are here only to live for free on the dole. Then on top of that we have millions who come illegally and loads more who arrive legally then stay illegally past their visa allowances. When Trump now tries to close the open door even a tiny bit, the courts shut him down. Until Gorsuch gets on the court, we haven't a chance to get an overturn from the supreme court. Basically our courts are trying to establish a constitutional right that anyone on the planet who can get here by hook or by crook, has a right to stay and go on the public dole forever. Unless the breach in the dam can be sealed, you all can debate who is white, who is American, what races to deport, where the deported should go, how many generations a race must live here before one is an American, etc. etc. etc. Its like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or the best stateroom colors on a sinking ship. Its all moot until the breach in the dam or the holes in the side of the ship are sealed. We have a crisis here of incoming immigrants - a tidal wave of them. Since we have an ongoing crisis, let us ally all who agree that the breach in the dam needs to be filled and work toward filling that breach and solving the major problem that is ongoing. Once we have the tidal wave held back and reduced to just a trickle, then debate on what to do next is great. We have a rare opportunity here. Lets not blow it by Balkanizing ourselves to the point where we never accomplish our goals. We are all allies in shutting the door. Vox has fun stirring things up. Its what he does. The points he makes are interesting but it is debate over something that needs to be debated only once the primary problem of the wide open immigration door is shut. The task of shutting down the door is far larger and more difficult than you all assume it is. If congress passes a bill to build a wall, do you think there will not be lawsuits? Think the deep state courts will not put a hold on this bill somehow? Running everything Trump tries to do through the all the appeals courts and then to the supreme court can take forever. The left is trying to delay until they can try to get someone in to replace Trump in 2020 (they are hoping they can). Shutting the immigration door is going to be like fighting trench war during WWI. We will have to make major efforts to make only small progress against the deep state, courts, oppo-media, left-rioters/anarchists, etc. This is the beginning of the battle - not the end. We need all the allies we can get - cucks, civic nationalists, populists, Whigs, whoever wants to see the door shut and the tidal wave of immigrants both legal and illegal reduced to a trickle - those folks are our allies - let us not reject them now. If we fail in the next 4 years to fully get control of our immigration problem, it will never happen. When we accomplish the big goal of controlling immigration, then we can get to debate what to do next.

Forgive a personal anecdote but it was amusing to read the Franklin quote because the male ancestor of my father's family was one of those Palatine Boors, although Franklin would have been relieved when he moved to French Louisiana in 1755. Very interesting to read that I wish my father were alive he would get a kick out of it.

VD wrote:As I suspected, this is incorrect by every measure. The USA had about 31 percent of the industrial capacity of the seven major powers prior to WWII. This is primarily reflective of its larger population, as it had 132 million people, compared to 48.4 million in the UK, 40.7 million in France, and 79.4 million in Germany.

Ah, but once one bombs one's competitors into rubble, and further steals all the good German engineers left alive, one gets to be Big Dog for a while:

https://flic.kr/p/Rtm6o1

(Unfortunately the illuminati freemason überlords at the Fed only had constant-dollar datasets from the 1906s onward and I didn't feel like battling with GDP inflator math for the world.)

Eventually the rest of the world sort-of kind-of catches up, though it bears noticing that the US, with less that 5% of the world population is still punching much above its weight.

That last spike at the end isn't US growth, it's a big world GDP contraction caused by restlessness in the Middle East... I wonder where that came from.

My confusion/double-take with the Intellectual Alternative Right movement, is that were all shouting fir the need to save Western Civilization. And yet, when looking back at the West's history, we are merely contented to rewind things only so far back as to the Freemasonic/Enlightenment anti-Western moment when those Founders made this country, the US. In fact, it could be argued that the founding of the USA was the beginning of the unraveling of the West--that is, if we ignore the French Enlightenment.

You might be a northern separatist, you might be a southern Anglican, but if you were American, you were Protestant, shot Catholic French and Spaniards when you could and on November 5th burned an effigy of the Pope.

The Spanish and French Catholics were here spreading Christianity long before desperate Englishmen came along from their broken island. I'd say the first two groups have more of a claim to being "American" than the latter group, who ran roughshod across the Continent, and suddenly decided to stop breeding.

As a Jew of highly assimilated background who grew up in America the idea of civic nationalism is quite seductive. It is a concept that certainly benefited (((my))) people.

It is also naive. As a Jew, part of the Jewish nation, I find myself nodding positively at much of what Vox says on the subject.

Jews welcome converts. Not being deterred from conversion by the imposition of the death penalty, converts are commonplace in Orthodox shuls across America. The civic nationalist stance enabled and even encouraged this. To convert though, really does mean renouncing completely one's background and completely assimilating into the Jewish people. The concept is so complete that one's close blood relatives are not considered related.

To Jews faithful to our traditions, assimilation is a tragedy, even a silent holocaust. Even though we've benefited incredibly from America's warm welcome, how does civic nationalism address this conflicting agenda long term? Welcome Jews who assimilate completely (including religiously, and perhaps even politically) while expelling the ones who don't?

I should also add that there are times when Jews have barred converts. In Esther, in the aftermath of our victory, it tells of many gentiles falsely professing to be Jewish. That was because, our traditions tell us, we stopped accepting converts. Our newly lofty status made such not worth the risk of insincere converts.

"The Spanish and French Catholics were here spreading Christianity . . ."

I mentioned upthread that it was the Catholic French who held that all men were equal in eyes of God. Most conversions of natives were done by the French - the English tendency was to not recognize the natives as men.

You can't save a soul that isn't there, you see.

But you are letting your religious emotions get away with you. What I stated above is historical fact. The English of the colonies were rabidly anti-Catholic, to a man, and America remained at least rather leary of Catholics until the 1960s.

I have myself pointed out in previous threads that one problem with the idea of sending certain people back is that they didn't come to America, America came to them and ran roughshod across them.

But then it's not exactly like the French and the Spanish were little angels peacefully trying to make this God's own county purely by The Word either. I'm typing this from a house built on the ashes of English houses that the French burned to to ground.

They were doing their own share of trying to run roughshod over the continent - and maybe shoot some Protestants while they were about it. There was a lot of that sort of thing going around at the time.

Yes, Vox....you could not be more correct. The basis of civic nationalism is a FAKE HISTORY, dredging to the surface so-called commonly held American values that never existed in our history..JFK speaking at the Yale commencement in 1962 pointed out that enemy of truth is not the lie. Lies can be easily discovered and disproven. The enemy of truth is the myth, because the myth goes unquestioned and unchallenged. The civic nationalists are just as guilty as the Leftist Liberals at manufacturing FAKE HISTORY and falsely reporting histories that never happened..Your own example of "all men are created equal" was NEVER an American value (and still is not). At the time of the Declaration of Independence, the phrase was used to poke King George III in the eye with a sharp stick. It was a refutation of the Divine Right of Kings and certainly NOT anything to do with egalitarianism in America. At the time, there was NO EQUALITY and there never had been.....slave and free, man and woman, American Indian and white European, rich and poor, Catholic and Protestant, old and young. Nobody was equal. They were all different and that made them all unique. Being unique meant they were rare and thus valuable. We are not clones or machines. We are individuals..This is a Republic, not a Democracy, and nowhere was this more directly expressed than through our voting. "One man, one vote" is nowhere expressed in the Constitution and did not become a "traditional American value" until 1962 for Federal representation and two years later to become the standard for state elections as well. Was it due to a constitutional amendment or a new Federal law? Not at all. Earl Warren and the Supreme Court plucked it out of thin air.

Civic nationalist see themselves as having the moral high ground. And rightly so, in light of recent victorys. Because of 4gw strategists and tactics, resource abundance, and relative stability, in the current political environment civic nationalism works. Once any these three pillars fall, particularly resource abundance or stability, the Alt right ascendancy will grow. But with it a miriad of other separatist movements, and the Blood Wars shall begin. This is what the civic nationalist fear, and rightly so. And this is why the Alt right needs the moral high ground sooner rather than later. The left becoming more violent and unhinged without public support is the best possible outcome. Civic nationalist will have to reach the same conclusions as the Alt right.

"The USA had about 31 percent of the industrial capacity of the seven major powers prior to WWII."

No doubt. With Autos though its different, in 1938 the USA produced 1.5 million. The Western Europe and UK maybe 600,000 the rest of the world probably 300,000.

1938 GDP - USA 85 billion. Western Europe 100 Billion. Italy 9 Billion, Japan 6 Billion. The Japanese has steel production of 6 million vs. our 60 million in WW2. The Japanese auto industry wasn't destroyed in WW2, they didn't have much to destroy. Western Europe, let alone Eastern Europe and Italy/Spain had a pygmy auto industry compared to ours.

On the one hand, American Jews that reject their Jewish heritage and identity all too frequently become the socialist/globalist vermin we all hate so much, an enemy of America and Jews alike. There are exceptions, but it seems fated to be a small minority.

On the other hand, those that fully embrace their culture and heritage, Orthodox Jews, while overwhelmingly right-wing (67% vote Republican) and supportive of nationalism, are highly un-assimilated and thus not American.

First-generation Russian Jews like myself who came after the fall of the Soviet Union evolved differently, as few Russian immigrants (white or Jewish) are religious, and there is a strong right-wing and nationalist instinct as a rejection of communism.

But that's a fairly small subgroup, numbering about 500,000 out of a total of 6.5 million.

@108 Yes indeed. A problem that works in reverse too as you point out. The Jews most loyal to America are the least assimilated, and vice versa.

I quibble with your number of 6.5M Jews in America today. That's wildly inflated and optimistic. The likely and even realistic number is far closer to 4.5M.

I don't know how you manage in the Bay Area. I had numerous friends at UCSD in the 1980s from there. I liked them, but they were universally snobs. Their Bay Area snobbery got nearly intolerable at times. I had one friend from South San Fracisco, as working class and cookie-cutter-ish as any development in Los Angeles. He was just as bad. I bet today it's 100x worse. This was completely aside from the pervasive leftism (1980s LA was nothing like that). I liked visiting the Bay Area, but was perfectly happy not to end up working there for a living (the likely choice had I not made aliyah).

Being from Los Angeles, I got some of their superficial disdain for LA. But it was superficial.

Lazarus wrote:VD wrote:Americans 1.0: The only true Americans, descendants of the original English Americans, the Mayflower Americans.the first permanent English settlement in North America was Jamestown, Virginia.

Ironically, they imported 8 german and polish immigrant. The Germans defected to the Indians..Actually, they imported 8 to 17 "Dutch, Germans and Poles", and it's hard to say how many of them were Poles, Germans or Dutch. Surely Poles were described at one point as the only ones working, they likely co-created the first industry in America... and likely made a first strike, when they were refused the right to vote in 1619:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1619_Jamestown_Polish_craftsmen_strike

There is much mythmaking about those Poles, some of which is clearly false and yet accepted by some Poles without any criticism. What we know for sure is taht they were POles (plural), skilled artisans, praised by John Smith and supposedly made the first strike in Northern America.

Some Poles were also immigrating to north america later, before american war of independence (Zabrisky, Sandusky/Sadowski families), though before 1870 the immigration was sporadic in nature. Nowadays, about 10 millions Americans 2.0 claims they are Polish-Americans, and it is estimated that twice as many has some Polish ancestry. Only 600.000 of them speaks Polish, though.

Removing them from America should be interesting, though, as Pol-Ams seems to form close to 10% in two states, and more than 5% in 9 American states.

I wondr how many of Americans 3.0 (sorry, in previous post wrote 2.0) would return to the countries of their origins if "removed with some difficulty). I imagine that if just 10% of Pol-Ams would return to Poland, it would be really, really great, as most of them are conservative, have higher-than US white-non hispanic average income and education. It would definetely help my country, as we have really tragic demographic situation, exacerbated by huge emigration (remember, if you support immigration from Poland to your country, it means you are awful son-of-the-b* who supports brain-draining, removing desperately needed specialists from poor country!)

Interesting, what is your source for 4.5 million? I was just citing the estimate on Infogalactic myself.

Haha, I absolutely despise San Francisco and most people that live there. A dirty, stupid city with insufferable people, Chinatown included, although there are some nice tourist attractions, art exhibits, museums, and restaurants.

No, I live in a suburb about an hours' drive away. The only neighbor I bother talking with is a white Texan in his early 70s, retired Air Force pilot, whose sociopolitical views are the closest to my own.

Most of my friends are as strange as I am.

Amusingly, I lived for several years in LA County, although that too was in a more suburban region. Rarely visited LA proper.

I may have had an epiphany but I'm not sure. This epiphany is rooted in the definition of "nationhood". Nationhood is the idea that a collective of individuals of commonly held values and beliefs (culture) gather together in a given territory, and form a method of governance (the state) that form policies (law) which reflect those commonly held values and beliefs. The so-called Founders (Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Dr. Thomas Burke, Richard Henry Lee... to name a few) created an American polity that reflected those commonly held beliefs and values. And then something went wrong, the rise of the so-called progressive movement.

Just want to add that the rise of progressivism was enabled by the "tools and instruments" of strong central governance. The drama did not begin at the turn of the early 20th century but much earlier. Perhaps after the Civil War and the ratification of the 14th Amendment. The issue is not granting citizenship to Black folks. Instead, the issue is "selective incorporation". Obviously, I am a fan of Section One (I am a Black man). It's the following sections which enabled increased centralized power. This increase added to the arsenal of progressive assholes like W.E.B. DuBois and Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

@112 My friend follows Jewish demographics pretty closely out of both personal interest and professional need to know. He's cited the research to me. I can't remember all the sources, but I believe Sergio_DellaPergola is one of the authorities he looks at.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Sergio_DellaPergola

The 6M+ numbers dandied about today are using the most inclusive definition possible of "Who is a Jew?" Actual halachic Jews are far fewer in number. The older generations are dying out rapidly, and the younger ones don't have kids (and the kids that are had are often not Jewish). As fecund as the Orthodox are, the birthrate does not compensate all the much for the trend (now).

I know I suggested I was finished but I need to qualify something I said in regards to the Civil War. In my opinion, the Constitution created the sectionalist divides that resulted in the Civil War. The "Founders" I mentioned earlier pursued a form of governance that would have avoided this conflict. Indeed Jefferson supported ratification but it must be noted that during the debates over ratification, he was not present. He was in Paris. I am of the belief that had he been present, he would have opposed ratification.

@44 VD: I think the original source for the 50% claim is James Dunnigan's "How To Make War". He claimed that due to expansion of capacity, the US had an unusually high proportion of world capacity in 1940. Whatever the exact numbers, it was enough to arm 11 million Americans, with enough to spare to give the Soviets 200,000 trucks and make the Sherman tank the most common in British service.

Seeing all the shit wrong with america and the west in general makes me wonder if its best the whole system gets killed for good. Some shit should implode and get all the yuppies, SJWs and niggity nogs killed in a collapse so the cleared land can be conquered by righteous survivors to begin a real nation.Enough with the "save the west" pandering. Its so beta. Its starting to make the crusader memes look alpha by comparison. Can't anyone around here get some preparatory land and vaults for WW3 and just ignite the burning climax of the Kali Yuga?

This epiphany is rooted in the definition of "nationhood". Nationhood is the idea that a collective of individuals of commonly held values and beliefs (culture) gather together in a given territory, and form a method of governance (the state) that form policies (law) which reflect those commonly held values and beliefs.

That is a false definition of nation that is contradicted by the etymology of the word itself.

@114 It's possible that what went wrong was incoherency. The original founding was on the basis of the rights of Englishmen, and done with pretty solid support from the Anglican church in America. So it was very, very English, but there was an emotional pull-back from that.

On the other hand, the US did better at preserving those English rights and laws than England itself did. Perhaps, then, it really was a stronger instance or evolution of the English social/political/cultural beast, yet not quite strong enough?

In any case, Vox reckons the America of now is Imperial in nature, and sure to disintegrate into smaller nation-states. That is not necessarily inevitable, though. Imperial states can be relatively stable and survivable (at least, according to Taleb in "Antifragile", a book Vox recommends and which I consider absolutely vital reading).

If a stable disinterested Imperial state can evolve instead of anarchy, then it is possible that it might in turn devolve peacefully into nation-states close to the proven stable model of settled ethnic/cultural blocs; in effect a Federal life-cycle.

You are overthinking this. Wright is simply hedging his bets. Anyone who writes like he does isn't ignorant of the facts Vox has laid out, he knows them cold. He just doesn't want to pick sides until there is a clear winner and right now it's all up in the air and that much he can sense. If the Right prevails, he was always a supporter of the Nation of the Founders, if the Leftists win, he was always a supporter of open borders and the proposition nation. Win/win.

It is stunning to me how often we assign our own moral or philosophical patterns to others when we have a discourse, never reading the actual person for the signs. Liars get away with their lies, not because they are especially adept at it or convincing, but because the person they are pulling the wool on trust in them. Wright reads like a coward to me, not willing to take a side but to weave this elaborate verbal afghan that shields him- he thinks- from any real stand. When I read it all I see are escape hatches built into his position allowing him to go whichever way the wind blows.

You are going to find far more people in this middle road than you will on either side, all of them biding their time and saving their resources until it becomes clear which side is clearly dominant and then you'll see them angling hard for that shore.

@90 "The task of shutting down the door is far larger and more difficult than you all assume it is. If congress passes a bill to build a wall, do you think there will not be lawsuits? Think the deep state courts will not put a hold on this bill somehow? Running everything Trump tries to do through the all the appeals courts and then to the supreme court can take forever."

Some more research needed before you posted this: "If congress passes a bill to build a wall"

The LAW was passed and signed to build the wall TEN years ago! Trump does not need to 'get permission' or force action on Congress; it's already law. Congress passed the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (and "Congress approved $1.2 billion in a separate homeland security spending bill to bankroll the fence...")(Gee, wonder what THAT was spent on.)

@121 What is the definition of "nation"? In my mind, I am forming my ideas of such as a result of reading "Cuckservative". I'm not parroting the concepts contained within that text, instead, I am expressing a set of ideas which seem logical to me. Is a nation a collective of individuals with a common culture?

But the reality is that 100 years ago they'd probably be flying the American flag, too.

No, I don't need the word "now". Some perhaps would, but many wouldn't. Surely you don't think that when there's a Mexico-US soccer match somewhere in the US and the stadium is filled with Mexican flags, those are all first- or second-generation immigrants.

Southerners fly the Confederate flag because they still consider that their nation, after 150 years. I can find you people in my Midwest town whose ancestors came here 150-200 years ago, but they have memorabilia of Germany or Ireland (if not outright flags). There's a Germanfest here every year because of the large German-descended population, even though most of the people attending it don't even know exactly when their ancestors came over.

No, you can't count on immigrants to drop their previous loyalties and cultures after 100 years, or ever if they have numbers. Not due to "gratitude," or anything else.

I believe the torture is only to be used in a loving manner to help the confessee remember and confess his transgressions so he can repent and receive forgiveness. It's really a therapeutic tecnique like cognitive behavioral therapy. Just with more pitch, spikes and pliers. Really, it would be unethical *not* to torture those in need of it.

The flaming justice following the torture is just to help with repentence and has nothing to do with any desire to inflict pain.

See, this is the kind of gravitas in rhetoric that is lacking in my education. It is why I asked the question on torture to begin with. When confession cleanses the imortal soul; clearly it is good to torture the confession out of them.

As for whether they buy into the Preposition Nation; it is saving someone from further long-term mental torture from having to live amongst Deplorable people and prepares them for the freedom of living somewhere else. Clearly they won't be clammering to return.

How can Americans be explained as a race? Not white supremacy, but that the posterity happens to be (primarily) white? In other words: pro-white = pro-American, not pro-Supremacy. Or is this incorrect?

I wonder how many of Americans 3.0 (sorry, in previous post wrote 2.0) would return to the countries of their origins if "removed with some difficulty).

It's an interesting question. Also, how many would take some sort of US citizenship buyout, if their nations of ancestry wanted them back?

I'm a mix of 2.0 and 3.0. At my age of near 50, I'm pretty well settled in place, so I'm not interested in moving elsewhere in the US, let alone overseas. But when I was 20 and footloose, if someone had offered me a buyout or pension to move to Germany, Holland, England, or Ireland, who knows? I might have jumped on it. A chunk of cash to get a headstart in a foreign land where the people all look like me and the land and weather feel like home? Sounds like a pretty good deal.

Even now, my resistance would come from local attachment to family and friends, even to the improvements I've made on my property. It wouldn't be due to attachment to the American nation, because it isn't one.

Wright's interactional style and overall life pattern is of obligate honesty to the point of transparency and self-sabotage, not self-interested dishonesty.

His fairy-tale magical-thinking soul-synaesthesia makes for a wonderful fantasy atmosphere, but his inneracy leaves much to be desired in the logically-consistent worldview department. A trumpeted syllogism here or there does not a matrix make.

There are only so many conceptual revolutions in a busy man of letters' lifetime. Hedging can also signify someone who is being persuaded but lacks the juice for radical rebirth.

"Even now, my resistance would come from local attachment to family and friends, even to the improvements I've made on my property. It wouldn't be due to attachment to the American nation, because it isn't one."

Correct. It isn't one. There is nothing to return to. And I don't think things will ever be the same again. And I think that whites will still be a minority on the North American continent in 30 years.

So...I figure we can't pine for the glorious days of 1776. But since everyone's saying "we need to return America back to what it was" then my question stands:

What do you want America to be? What ought America be in the future?

Vox says he wants to return the United States demographic to the pre-1965 levels. I do not think that will happen. I think this country will break apart faster than that happens, and I don't think that whites will breed enough to maintain any kind of a majority. Our replacement levels aren't replacing us.

I mean...is this group honestly thinking that one day, all blacks will be sent off to Liberia, Hispanics pushed away to Mexico, and who knows what happens to the Asians, and the entire continental United States is white Protestants? Is that the ultimate goal and expectation? Because that seems to be what I keep hearing.

Al From Bay Shore wrote:@121 What is the definition of "nation"? [...] Is a nation a collective of individuals with a common culture?The commonly accepted definitions (_at least_ since the beginning of the 15th century) are, more or less, people sharing blood, language and culture.

However, It just came to me that such definition describes actually nations in statu nascendi, potential nations. Nations really DO require a common uniting myth. Hence the mistake of thinking that "uniting myth" is all that is needed to create a nation, and omission of the prerequisites.

A family protects itself. We'll do anything for our families. Americans 1.0

To grow, a family adds members from outside, as when a daughter takes a husband in marriage. Those sons-in-law who successfully integrate become part of the family and are protected as natural-born members, but their outsider relatives (our in-laws) are not. We didn't lose a daughter, we gained a son. American 2.0

Other families who have chosen to buy houses on our block probably share our work ethic and income level. They aren't family but we mostly get along with them. Americans 3.0

The people in the projects who insist their lives matter, or in the barrio who insist their land was stolen, are not family, they're not even neighbors. They have no claim on our protection. We avoid them because they're unpredictable and often violent. Americans 4.0

In my prior post, race and religion are not dominant factors. My daughter could marry a Lutheran and if he's a decent guy, he becomes part of the family. It'd be difficult to integrate him into a Catholic clan, but it could work. My son could marry a Black woman, a Southern Baptist. Even more difficult, but in theory, it could work. In small doses, given enough time, a family could absorb a few outsiders.

To insist the only people entitled to the protection of the Constitution are the descendants of the original signers is too narrow; it denies how families operate, have always operated, if they are to survive. Yes, each addition changes the family slightly. Doesn't mean it's not still a family, that we don't rank our cousins higher than the ghetto or barrio dwellers.

Sadly, families argue, sometimes even split. That's where Vox's thinking is ahead of almost everybody elses' thinking. What happens to a nation when we've taking in sons-in-law who can't get along, who hate the rest of the family? We go our separate ways, mourning the loss of our daughter, but respecting her choice to leave the clan.

Calexit is inevitable. The South will rise again. Fragmentation is coming, sooner or later.

@135 "How can Americans be explained as a race? Not white supremacy, but that the posterity happens to be (primarily) white?""It's not happenstance. It is a necessary condition for the existence of American success."

And White America has provided a stellar example, offered freely all our documents and structures and way of looking at the world and a nation and a country; and as Sharrukin wrote, we ever SET UP a copy of America to repatriated blacks in Liberia. ONLY White countries have 'created' some version of a Western First World country.

This is the problem I see always (apologies to our host) with the Indians/Native"Americans" saying America 'was' or 'is' or 'should be' theirs. Certainly there was an amazing continent here, with resources and land, and a whole lot of warring tribes. There was no "America" here. If those folks (those White folks) who created America here had, instead, gone to ... pick your other large, protected by oceans, land -- then THIS continent would not have ended up America or anything particularly LIKE America. (And that other mythical land would have ended up America, whatever it was called.)

American success -- America's existence -- depends on those English settlers (not immigrants, because there was no country into which they immigrated; there was "unowned" (by Euro lights) land claimed by England (mostly). AFTER those settlers created a nation, and then broke free from the motherland, only then did America come into being, from (mostly) English colonies.

There is no America without the Founders and their posterity. (Take it back! WE want to go back, too!)

There seems to be a misunderstanding about the difference between being a part of the broad civilization called "Christendom" and on the other hand being a coherent and cohesive national entity with a unique national identity. The people who live in all these other nations who crave the idea of becoming "Americans" need to work to make their own nation more "American," and stop thinking in terms of coming to America and becoming an American here as if the dirt was magical. Assuming that liberty survives, I think in the future the idea will be that as every Christian nation is "Christian" in its own unique way, every nation that loves liberty and justice will be "American" in its own unique way, and the idea that the secret to experiencing liberty and justice is to come to the magic dirt of the North American continent will be put to rest. I agree that there are moral propositions at work in the founding of the USA, but that doesn't mean what the Melting Pot liberals think it means.

If think if America as currently constituted is to survive much longer (let's say another century or more), it must roll the clock back 50 years, not just on immigration, but on much of the damage done by the Left since the 1960s. It would still be a multicultural empire, and still have a liberal democracy, but it might survive. That might be the best-worst solution, if holding the whole thing together is an imperative. Liberal democracy sucks, but Americans have been well-indoctrinated that it's the pinnacle of human achievement in government. They're as allergic to kings as the Romans, so while they might line up behind a dictator if things got bad enough, they're not going to choose to go "back" to limited monarchy or something like that.

If it breaks up, then it depends on how many pieces and where the borders are. Also on how much movement of people to join their tribes there is. If the pieces are the 50 states or larger regions, they'll probably still have a lot of diversity, and will try to maintain the same sort of respresentative government they have now, for that reason. If the pieces are smaller and people move around to form homogeneous nations, then the possibilities expand greatly. But then we're not really talking about "America" anymore.

So would I. And the book of the debate (both sides have a moment to clean up and remove "mispokes" [laughter] would be a gem. They have to have enough time to prepare, though, and for two of the busiest people in the world, this might be a trick.

Perhaps Mr. Wright would understand what is happening to the US by comparing it to the Catholic Church accepting large numbers of protestants who will not convert to Catholic doctrine, will not teach their children Catholic doctrine, and furthermore wish to change Catholic doctrine to suit them.

Perhaps Mr. Wright would understand what is happening to the US by comparing it to the Catholic Church accepting large numbers of protestants who will not convert to Catholic doctrine, will not teach their children Catholic doctrine, and furthermore wish to change Catholic doctrine to suit them.

szopen wrote:I wondr how many of Americans 3.0 (sorry, in previous post wrote 2.0) would return to the countries of their origins if "removed with some difficulty). I imagine that if just 10% of Pol-Ams would return to Poland, it would be really, really great, as most of them are conservative, have higher-than US white-non hispanic average income and education. It would definetely help my country, as we have really tragic demographic situation, exacerbated by huge emigration

I imagine that you could get that with an ad campaign. People want to be wanted. Perhaps something along the lines of "Please bring your American entrepreneurial spirit back to your homeland, where everyone can spell your name, and hire back our kinsmen from the four winds!" Honesty in an ad would be so novel, it just might work.

"Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson happen to disprove the romantic notion of the civic nationalists as well. They believed foreigners could assimilate, so long as there were sufficiently small numbers of them, and their blood literally intermingled with the English blood of the actual Americans in time."

All the quotes look like civic nationalism. The issue is always customs, habits, and principles.

Blood intermixing is obviously an efficient means to that end, but the end is in behavior.

Swap a baby of German parents in Frankfurt with a baby of English parents in Philadelphia in 1750. Let them grow up with their unknowingly adoptive parents.

Which one would Ben and George and Thomas consider more English, more beneficial to the colonies, when they're grown as men?

Are English babies supposed to be born with Liberty corpuscles that German babies lack?

Would an English baby stolen by wolves and raised as Wolf Boy grow to be an Englishman?

Magic blood is as plausible as magic dirt.

Both probably have *some* validity, but the predominant determinant of your habits, customs, and principles are the habits, customs, and principles you are surrounded with as you grow and live, not the blood in your veins or the dirt under your nails.

@154. What are your thoughts about the small amount of conservative non-white Americans who are supporting our cause? Could they have their own tiny province in America if they submit to our rule? And could Native Americans have their own small province too? I'd like to work out a compromise with these people.